SERIE A: Lecce - Juventus (26 Viewers)

[Zlatan]

FIFA redefines offside rule to promote more goals

October 30, 2003

Print this article
Email to a friend

New guidelines on the offside rule issued by world soccer's governing body, FIFA, should give greater advantage to forwards and put an end to the debate about what constitutes "interfering with play".

The guidelines were issued recently to national federations, and while they are not a rule change they will now change the handling of offside decisions.

In effect, they mean players who do not touch the ball or directly block the vision or movement of an opponent will not be ruled offside.

The laws of the game state that a player can only be penalised for offside if he is "involved in active play by: interfering with play, interfering with an opponent or gaining an advantage by being in that position".

The new guidelines are more precise, saying offside for "interfering with play" means "playing or touching a ball passed or touched by a teammate".

"Interfering with an opponent" is defined as "preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball, for example, by clearly obstructing the goalkeeper's line of vision or movements", or "making a gesture or movement while standing in the path of the ball to deceive or distract an opponent".

The tricky issue of whether a player is "gaining an advantage" by his position is explained as "playing a ball that rebounds off a post or the crossbar having been in an offside position" and "playing a ball that rebounds off an opponent having been in an offside position".

Italy's Serie A has operated informally with such interpretations this season. When players have been in a "passive" offside position not involved in the game, the linesman's flag has stayed down but has later been raised if the player touches the ball.

FIFA said the aim of the new interpretation "is to protect attacking play intended to result in a goal".

UEFA.com
Passive offside
Saturday, 01 December 2001

In this latest situation, we want you to discuss the issue of passive offside. We see a superbly finished goal from the Real Madrid CF player Santiago Solari in last season’s UEFA Champions League match against S.S. Lazio.

Offside position – not an offence in itself
But although Solari was not in an offside position, there were clearly at least two other Madrid attackers nearer to the Lazio goal line than both the ball and the second last Lazio opponent. However, Law 11 states that: “it is not an offence in itself to be in an offside position.” The Law goes on to say that: “A player in an offside position is only penalised if, at the moment the ball touches or is played by one of his team, he is, in the opinion of the referee, involved in active play by:
• interfering with play or
• interfering with an opponent
• gaining an advantage by being in that position.”

Correct position?
Particular attention should also be paid to the position of the assistant referee at the bottom of the picture. Is he always in the correct position to decide on offside?

Over to you
What are your views on passive offside? Would you have given this goal? We look forward to hearing from you…

 

Buy on AliExpress.com

[KB824]

I have a question.

When was the last january acquisition for Juventus??

The reason I'm a sking is, although we can all see that Juve needs help on the backline, something tells me that Moggi will simply stand pat in january.

I don't want to get my hopes up for nothing.

 

[kaizer]

++ [ originally posted by Vinman ] ++

Juve player of the game- the linesman who gifted Trez's goal by not calling offsides

sometimes i wonder if u're a milanista/romanista/interista acting as juventino.... *pardon my italian *


i thot somebody made it clear that he WASNT offside....LOL

 

[IncuboRossonero]

++ [ originally posted by -Z- ] ++
It doesnt matter, how can you prove the Lecce players' state of mind??? Camo didnt touch the ball, didnt obstruct the keeper, therefor he wasnt influencing play

Its obvious not many of you saw the game. CAMO WAS IN FRONT OR FOKIN KEEPER. The keeper actually looked at the linesman...at Camo then pointed to him and started walking towards him...boom ball comes over..Trez intercepts...everyone is lost....keeper is yelling to the linesmen then backsteps it into position but its too late.

Its not about Lecce state of mind. Camo was a distraction...he was the reason the keeper and players did not play and the pass was looped over his way. Look I don't mind it because they deserved a goal but its clearly an example of the inconsistent calling of this rule.

 

[IncuboRossonero]

"Interfering with an opponent" is defined as "preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball, for example, by clearly obstructing the goalkeeper's line of vision or movements", or "making a gesture or movement while standing in the path of the ball to deceive or distract an opponent".

Camo was in a position in front of the keeper BEYOND ALL defenders...looking back and at the keeper...ready to run and the first thing the keeper saw. how the FOK was he not a distraction???!!!!!!

 

[kaizer]

good job zlatan....

@serge: cant remember either

but we werent in dire need of any player in the past like we do now IMO. i'll shoot moggi's head off if he doesnt buy.....:fero:

[asking vinman if i cud borrow his gun/]

 

[Hydde]

++ [ originally posted by IncuboRossonero ] ++


Its obvious not many of you saw the game. CAMO WAS IN FRONT OR FOKIN KEEPER. .

Man!!! NO NO NO NOOO he was not.!

he was some meters at the right of trez, who was more in front of the keeper than camo, who was even wlaking away.

 

[Zlatan]

++ [ originally posted by USA Juventini ] ++
I have a question.

When was the last january acquisition for Juventus??

The reason I'm a sking is, although we can all see that Juve needs help on the backline, something tells me that Moggi will simply stand pat in january.

I don't want to get my hopes up for nothing.

It was Davids IIRC... :undecide:

++ [ originally posted by IncuboRossonero ] ++


Its obvious not many of you saw the game. CAMO WAS IN FRONT OR FOKIN KEEPER. The keeper actually looked at the linesman...at Camo then pointed to him and started walking towards him...boom ball comes over..Trez intercepts...everyone is lost....keeper is yelling to the linesmen then backsteps it into position but its too late.

Its not about Lecce state of mind. Camo was a distraction...he was the reason the keeper and players did not play and the pass was looped over his way. Look I don't mind it because they deserved a goal but its clearly an example of the inconsistent calling of this rule.

Read the rules. He was not directly in front of the keeper, and not interfering the line of sight, he didnt touch the ball, didnt physically stop defenders getting to it, he didnt even run towards the ball, therefor he was not in an offisde position.

You see calls like this made every match around the box and noone complains.

 

[IncuboRossonero]

++ [ originally posted by Hydde ] ++


Man!!! NO NO NO NOOO he was not.!

he was some meters at the right of trez, who was more in front of the keeper than camo, who was even wlaking away.

Then your saying TREZ was OFFSIDE?????? If Trez was next to him then Trez was offside!!!! Camo was THE ONLY PLAYER in front of the keeper...THE REST of the team lecce and Juve were behind him...how could the Keeper NOT be distracted by the one Juve player .. and then he stutter stepped towards Camo as the ball came over.

 

[aressandro10]

++ [ originally posted by IncuboRossonero ] ++


Its obvious not many of you saw the game. CAMO WAS IN FRONT OR FOKIN KEEPER. The keeper actually looked at the linesman...at Camo then pointed to him and started walking towards him...boom ball comes over..Trez intercepts...everyone is lost....keeper is yelling to the linesmen then backsteps it into position but its too late.

Its not about Lecce state of mind. Camo was a distraction...he was the reason the keeper and players did not play and the pass was looped over his way. Look I don't mind it because they deserved a goal but its clearly an example of the inconsistent calling of this rule.

camo was totally NOT in between the keeper and the ball which at the time held by Appiah .the keeper can clearly saw Appiah play it..

in other words, Camoranesi did not stand in the keeper eyeline..you can also say Camoranesi didnot obstruct the keeper's vision....

 

[Zlatan]

++ [ originally posted by IncuboRossonero ] ++
"Interfering with an opponent" is defined as "preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball, for example, by clearly obstructing the goalkeeper's line of vision or movements", or "making a gesture or movement while standing in the path of the ball to deceive or distract an opponent".

Camo was in a position in front of the keeper BEYOND ALL defenders...looking back and at the keeper...ready to run and the first thing the keeper saw. how the FOK was he not a distraction???!!!!!!

No clear LoS obstruction and no gestures or movement to decieve opponent, he was walking away FFS!

He was offside, but as Uefa.com clearly says "being in an offside position is not an offence by itself"

 

[IncuboRossonero]

++ [ originally posted by -Z- ] ++


It was Davids IIRC... :undecide:




Read the rules. He was not directly in front of the keeper, and not interfering the line of sight, he didnt touch the ball, didnt physically stop defenders getting to it, he didnt even run towards the ball, therefor he was not in an offisde position.

You see calls like this made every match around the box and noone complains.

Where did you watch the game? Because your not explaining what you saw.

By the way buddy the question is not if he was offside..because he WAS the question is if he was distracting the play...offside does not mean its not a goal...so I don't know what you mean by saying therefore he was not offside. Offside is being beyond the defenders at the kick..he was..thats not the question. I think you associate not being part of the play = not being offside. This is incorrect. Do you realize your mistake on the logic of the ruling. He is still offside..thats not the discussion.

 

[IncuboRossonero]

Dude your changing your logic on every post. First he was not distracting therefore he was not offside. NOW he was offside but not distracting..ffs ... come on

 

[Hydde]

++ [ originally posted by IncuboRossonero ] ++


Then your saying TREZ was OFFSIDE?????? If Trez was next to him then Trez was offside!!!! Camo was THE ONLY PLAYER in front of the keeper...THE REST of the team lecce and Juve were behind him...how could the Keeper NOT be distracted by the one Juve player .. and then he stutter stepped towards Camo as the ball came over.

Be serious please.....

U know what i wanted to say.
He was not at the left of trez.. then he wasa t the right. And trezeguet was in the defenders line when the pass started.

 

[Henry]

has the game been played yet? if not, when is it?

 

[kaizer]

OMG...incubo, can we drop this shite already....? the linesman called it as it is....PERIOD! we have 3pages talking bout the same thing. ok...ook camo was offside, happy now...?

 

[IncuboRossonero]

++ [ originally posted by Hydde ] ++


Be serious please.....

U know what i wanted to say.
He was not at the left of trez.. then he wasa t the right. And trezeguet was in the defenders line when the pass started.

Not DIRECTED AT YOU HYDDE!
FOK have a beer Mate!

 

[kaizer]

++ [ originally posted by HWIENIAWSKI ] ++
has the game been played yet? if not, when is it?

LOL...where have u been? it's over already (hence the offside debate going on). we drew with lecce 1-1 m8....

 

[IncuboRossonero]

Ok seriously now...am I wasting my time:

-Z-

Look at this horseshite I have to decipher....I'm not a wizard and don't plan to unscramble your logic to figure out what the FOK yoru saying..seriously no offence at all but your trying to tell me about a play involving a rule you are learning as you go along:

First post you said: he didnt touch the ball, didnt physically stop defenders getting to it, he didnt even run towards the ball, he was not in an offisde position.



last post you said: He was offside
, but as Uefa.com clearly says "being in an offside position is not an offence by itself"

Is it me being a bitter Milanista or is this train of thought and logic totally frigged up.

 

[Hydde]

++ [ originally posted by IncuboRossonero ] ++


Not DIRECTED AT YOU HYDDE!
FOK have a beer Mate!

Not directed at me?
But u was replying my post!

Heyu know what? forget about it, i got tired of it.


and no beers for u today